bert :Unknown QM user
tony <synnet!mailgate!tony@uunet.uu.net> Wed, 18 September 1991 14:16 UTC
Received: from nisc.psi.net by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10445; 18 Sep 91 10:16 EDT
Received: by nisc.psi.net (5.61/2.1-PSINet Operations ) id AA06474; Wed, 18 Sep 91 10:00:17 -0400
Received: from relay1.UU.NET by nisc.psi.net (5.61/2.1-PSINet Operations ) id AA06461; Wed, 18 Sep 91 10:00:13 -0400
Received: from uunet.uu.net (via LOCALHOST.UU.NET) by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA00723; Wed, 18 Sep 91 10:02:17 -0400
Received: from synnet.UUCP by uunet.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL (queueing-rmail) id 100132.9742; Wed, 18 Sep 1991 10:01:32 EDT
Received: from mailgate by synnet.com (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA13935; Wed, 18 Sep 91 09:48:58 EDT
Message-Id: <9109181348.AA13935@synnet.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1991 10:00:09 -0000
From: tony <synnet!mailgate!tony@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: bert :Unknown QM user
To: uunet!nisc.psi.net!snmp-wg@uunet.uu.net
GatorMail-Q bert :Unknown QM user Received: by mailgate; 18 Sep 91 10:00:07 Received: from uunet.UUCP by synnet.com (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA13924; Wed, 18 Sep 91 09:48:51 EDT Received: from nisc.psi.net by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA16112; Tue, 17 Sep 91 22:44:18 -0400 Received: by nisc.psi.net (5.61/2.1-PSINet Operations ) id AA06106; Tue, 17 Sep 91 22:32:58 -0400 Received: from fernwood.mpk.ca.us by nisc.psi.net (5.61/2.1-PSINet Operations ) id AA06102; Tue, 17 Sep 91 22:32:52 -0400 Received: by fernwood.mpk.ca.us; id AA15491; Tue, 17 Sep 91 19:34:20 -0700 Received: from localhost by dbc.mtview.ca.us (4.1/Anterior/SMI-4.0) id AA19315; Tue, 17 Sep 91 19:03:38 PDT To: Karl.Auerbach@eng.sun.com Reply-To: uunet!nisc.psi.net!snmp-wg Cc: snmp-wg@nisc.psi.net Subject: Re: Agenda for the next IETF meeting in Sante Fe In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 17 Sep 91 10:59:49 PDT." <9109171759.AA25479@Eng.Sun.COM> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 91 19:03:36 -0700 Message-Id: <19314.685159416@dbc.mtview.ca.us> >From: Marshall Rose <uunet!dbc.mtview.ca.us!mrose> Karl - According to RFC1250, "IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS", RFC1212 has been advanced to Draft Standard protocol status. As such, it will be another six months before RFC1212 can be considered for advancement to Standard protocol status. I have heard no statement from either the IAB or IESG indicating that this document is being sent back. Until I receive word from either organization, I believe you are wrong in your assertion that the RFC is supposedly being sent back to the working group. However, while we are on this topic, I will confess to becoming increasingly annoyed at people who, when they don't get their way in the working group, feel no hesitation to start lobbying the IAB to get things turned around to their liking, introducing delay and confusion into the process. This does not serve the community interest. However, if this is going to be the modus operandi, then perhaps we should dissolve all the working groups, and have the IAB produce and ratify all the documents. That way, we can be assured that we have to fight each battle only once, rather than this tiresome bit of person X losing in the working group, person X reintroducing the issue to the IESG to get the decision to go the other way, person X losing there, person X reintroducing the issue to the IAB to get the decision to go the other way, etc. Frankly, I am getting tired of this nonsense. /mtr
- bert :Unknown QM user tony
- bert :Unknown QM user tony
- bert :Unknown QM user tony
- bert :Unknown QM user tony
- bert :Unknown QM user tony
- bert :Unknown QM user tony
- bert :Unknown QM user tony
- bert :Unknown QM user tony
- bert :Unknown QM user tony
- bert :Unknown QM user tony
- Re: bert :Unknown QM user John Pickens